Key result
Continuous VitalPatch monitoring correlates with post-LPS inflammatory response better than episodic checks.
Why the study?
Remote inflammation monitoring with digital health technologies could provide valuable clinical information, and controlled immune perturbations may reveal physiological signatures to develop a digital biomarker of inflammatory state.
Does continuous monitoring with a wearable patch (VitalPatch) improve the detection of inflammatory state in healthy volunteers undergoing an LPS challenge compared to conventional episodic monitoring?
Observational (n=10)
Does continuous monitoring with a wearable patch (VitalPatch) improve the detection of inflammatory state in healthy volunteers undergoing an LPS challenge compared to conventional episodic monitoring?
Effect estimate: r 0.73
Continuous monitoring with a wearable patch can accurately track physiological changes corresponding to inflammatory cytokine responses, outperforming conventional episodic vital sign measurements.
May support continuous wearables for tracking inflammation in research; leaves open clinical utility pending patient validation.
Remote inflammation monitoring with digital health technologies (DHTs) would provide valuable information for both clinical research and care. Controlled perturbations of the immune system may reveal physiological signatures which could be used to develop a digital biomarker of inflammatory state. In this study, molecular and physiological profiling was performed following an in vivo lipopolysaccharide (LPS) challenge to develop a digital biomarker of inflammation. Ten healthy volunteers received an intravenous LPS challenge and were monitored for 24 h using the VitalConnect VitalPatch (VitalPatch). VitalPatch measurements included heart rate (HR), heart rate variability (HRV), respiratory rate (RR), and skin temperature (TEMP). Conventional episodic inpatient vital signs and serum proteins were measured pre‐ and post‐LPS challenge. The VitalPatch provided vital signs that were comparable to conventional methods for assessing HR, RR, and TEMP. A pronounced increase was observed in HR, RR, and TEMP as well as a decrease in HRV 1–4 h post‐LPS challenge. The ordering of participants by magnitude of inflammatory cytokine response 2 h post‐LPS challenge was consistent with ordering of participants by change from baseline in vital signs when measured by VitalPatch ( r = 0.73) but not when measured by conventional methods ( r = −0.04). A machine learning model trained on VitalPatch data predicted change from baseline in inflammatory protein response ( R 2 = 0.67). DHTs, such as VitalPatch, can improve upon existing episodic measurements of vital signs by enabling continuous sensing and have the potential for future use as tools to remotely monitor inflammation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Avey et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Healthy volunteers (n=10). VitalConnect VitalPatch vs. Conventional episodic inpatient vital signs was evaluated on Correlation between magnitude of inflammatory cytokine response 2 h post-LPS challenge and change from baseline in vital signs (r 0.73). Continuous monitoring using the VitalPatch correlated with inflammatory cytokine response (r=0.73) better than conventional episodic measurements (r=-0.04) following an in vivo LPS challenge.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: